Nathan Andrew Iyer

• Application 10808-2011
• Admitted 1991
• Hearing 7 February 2012
• Reasons 9 March 2012

The SDT ordered that the respondent should be struck off the roll.

The respondent had conducted himself in a manner which was likely to compromise or impair his duty to act with integrity, contrary to rule 1(a) of the Solicitors Practice Rules 1990 and/or where such conduct related to a ­period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.02 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; he had conducted himself in a manner which was likely to compromise or impair his duty to act in the best interest of clients, contrary to rule 1(c) of the rules and/or where such conduct related to a period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.04 of the code; he had conducted himself in a manner which was ­likely to compromise or impair the good repute of the solicitors’ profession and in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him, contrary to rule 1(d) of the rules and/or where such conduct related to a period after 1 July 2007, rule 1.06 of the code; he had created invoices for services which he had not performed or for expenses and/or disbursements which had not been incurred, thereby fraudulently misappropriating money from Ince & Co and/or Ince & Co’s clients; and he had acted dishonestly.

The Rule 5 statement set out clearly the allegations against the respondent and showed how his fraudulent activity had been set up and operated. Clients of the firm were defrauded by the respondent over a considerable period of time and extremely large sums were involved. It was in fact as bad a case of fraud as the present tribunal had seen.

He had been found guilty of dishonesty. He had apologised for his behaviour but in line with the matters referred to in the case of Bolton there could only be one sanction which the SDT could impose on the respondent and that was for him to be struck off the roll.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £11,671.